It is refreshing to see that our northern border ally has too come to see the true threat facing humanity in the 21st century. It is also refreshing to see the visionary and bold former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom taking a clear stance against the illegal regime of the Islamic Republic - especially since he has strong influence with the Quartet - I am feeling more and more confident that the international community will soon stand more firmly with the Syrian people in assisting with their liberation and that this will trickle down to Iran when Iranians rise up en masse in approximately 2-years during their next round of fake Presidential elections when the people can use it as an excuse to spill in the streets - I have included both articles below:

In an interview with the Times of London to commemorate the anniversary of 9/11, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair says that Iran is the real enemy.

He told the British paper:

“Regime change in Tehran would immediately make me significantly more optimistic about the whole of the region...”

“If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons capability it would destabilize the region very, very badly.

“They continue to support groups that are engaged with terrorism and the forces of reaction. In Iraq one of the main problems has been the continued intervention of Iran and likewise in Afghanistan.”

Blair also said he approved of regime change in Syria. In his view, President Bashar Assad "has shown he is not capable of reform. His position is untenable. There is no process of change that leaves him intact.”

In an exclusive interview with CBC News, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the biggest security threat to Canada a decade after 9/11 is Islamic terrorism.

In a wide-ranging interview with CBC chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge that will air in its entirety on The National Thursday night, Harper says Canada is safer than it was on Sept. 11, 2001, when al-Qaeda attacked the U.S., but that "the major threat is still Islamicism."

"There are other threats out there, but that is the one that I can tell you occupies the security apparatus most regularly in terms of actual terrorist threats," Harper said.

Harper cautioned that terrorist threats can "come out of the blue" from a different source, such as the recent Norway attacks, where a lone gunman who hated Muslims killed 77 people.

But Harper said terrorism by Islamic radicals is still the top threat, though a "diffuse" one.

"When people think of Islamic terrorism, they think of Afghanistan, or maybe they think of some place in the Middle East, but the truth is that threat exists all over the world," he said, citing domestic terrorism in Nigeria.

The prime minister said home-grown Islamic radicals in Canada are "also something that we keep an eye on."

Harper said his government will bring back anti-terrorism clauses that were brought in in 2001 but were sunset in 2007 amid heated political debate.

There were two clauses at the heart of the debate:

One allowed police to arrest suspects without a warrant and detain them for three days without charges if police believed a terrorist act may have been committed.

The other allowed a judge to compel a witness to testify in secret about past associations or perhaps pending acts under penalty of going to jail if the witness didn't comply.

Neither clause was used by police or prosecutors in the five years before they expired.

In October 2006, a parliamentary committee recommended extending the two provisions.

The Conservatives put forward a proposal to keep the measures in place for three more years, but the three opposition parties united to defeat the proposal in February 2007 by a 159-124 vote.

The rest of the legislation remained in force.

When asked by Mansbridge if he would try to bring those laws back, Harper replied: "That is our plan."

"We think those measures are necessary. We think they've been useful," he said. "And as you know … they're applied rarely, but there are times where they're needed."

@Unseen: Hehe.. I'm ideologically for removing them, but realistically I know it's currently impossible on a large scale. I am a great supporter of supranational solutions and strongly in favor of organizations such as the EU, ICC, NATO, ICJ, ECHR, UN, WTO, and the whole alphabet soup. While these organizations are far from perfect, their flaw is only that they are the bad in Churchillian sense; They are the worst thing humanity has tried, apart from all the other solutions we've tried.

I would say this lays within the realm of possibility, and as an example I would like to bring forth the Schengen accords. It smacks a bit of Libertarianism, but on the immigration policies only. Everyone secretly loves it, and as an expat I'm a personal beneficiary. I see Russia joining in a similar system in 20-40 years, Turkey in 30-50 years, and the Maghreb countries in 50-100 years. Perhaps one day the Angolo-Saxon tribes will discard their penchant for unilateralism and want to join too... ;)

@Arcus The EU is on the verge of total collapse over monetary issues. As for the alphabet soup, only NATO and the UN are familiar to me. There is as much to dislike about NATO as to like. I'm not sure NATO is very relevant anymore. Russia doesn't seem inclined to invade anyone right now.

You should stop reading English newspapers (perhaps with the exception of FT). ;)

Continental Europe greatly supports the EU, middle aged people (those who bother to vote in EU elections) more than the young and the old. Those who have studied are almost in unison in favor of deeper integration. The current crisis is just another one in a long line of previous ones where nationalism has gone up against international solidarity. The thing about the EU is that it has never resorted to less integration, though occasionally been put on temporary hold while people swallow what appears to be bitter pills.

"revival of nationalism"

They are few and marginalized, but they are noisy. It is our fifth column.

"There is no clear picture of what the EU should aspire to"

This is it's greatest forte. Noone really knows what type of beast it is. It's something entirely new in the world of politics with a political carte blanche to do what it wants. Jürgen Habermas, one of the worlds most preeminent political philosophers, has many good ideas. :)

"no real binding common history"

Well, that's just absolutely incorrect. We have thousands of years of shared history, much of it written in blood, and are enthusiastic about sharing it with the world. Especially the small countries like to show off their brilliance. Estonians, in particular, love when they can get positive media coverage, and they absolutely deserve it on merit of their recent and historical accomplishments. Most Greeks, at least those not busy throwing rocks, are working hard at restoring the country to greatness, if nothing else than to rub German and Turk faces in it in the future.

I think you jump over the fact that modern day countries such as Germany and Italy would neither "share common history" in the sense you are making. They didn't exist 150 years ago, today they have a strong national unity. (Apart from the Italians.. As people from Rome says: To the south [of the city of Rome] there are Arabs, to the north there are Germans.)

It has been on the verge of collapse since the inception of the Coal and Steel Union. Somehow it lingers on rather unperturbed. It's an excellent chopping block to blame all hard decisions on in local politics "We didn't want to, it's the EU!". Think how easy necessary reform would be in the US if the politicians could blame someone..

"Russia doesn't seem inclined to invade anyone right now."

Russia's national anthem is pretty much 'stop f*cking invading us!!'. Apart from a paranoia against yet another invasion, Russians just wants to be left alone. Russian blood has mostly been spilled on home soil and they have no need for more territory.

A joke goes that Russians only think they are Russians while sober, otherwise they like to be called Europeans... ;)

You're undeniably enthusiastic and optimistic about the EU Arcus. I hope that will turn out to be justified. As for now looking over the rim of my English newspaper into the Western part of the EU I see anti-EU sentiments or in p.c. lingo Euroscepticism on the rise on both sides of the political spectrum.

Recently there have been sounds beyond the usual suspects to change the rules to be able to kick out Greece, like the amputation of limb gone to gangrene and later perhaps other basket cases to follow, with Italy not far lagging behind the first nominees.

And when I was speaking of the rise of nationalism, I wasn't talking about the caricature kind, the Breivik variant so to speak, but of a level of acceptance to nationalism nonetheless that I have never seen before, mainstream that is, stands in awkward contrast to the recent past, sometimes with a self serving revisionist view of history, and has a noticeable stifling effect on public debate.

The Euroscepticism is quite an interesting topic and very British (though with reverberations across Europe). Heath was a staunch pro-Euro PM, as were Wilson. Callaghan was pretty much a lame duck, and it was not until Thatcher it really took off. Roy Jenkins - a Labour man disillusioned with his own party - was the long term pro-Euro UK ambassador to Brussels.

The EU core is much less skeptical and the EU project tends to receive higher support in places such as Germany, France, as well as the Southern and Eastern countries. Former Chancellor Schröder is now advocating a more federal role for the EU. I think in the longer term it is bound to happen.

As for kicking out Greece (and other fringe Euro nations) it is highly unlikely and politically unfeasible. Increased EU fiscal oversight is a more likely outcome, though that will happen after most of the ink has been spilled. I saw an estimate that it would cost Greece 25% of GDP for a year to leave. The cost to Germany might be as high as 5%. It's a lot cheaper just to save it via cigar room agreements and publicly yell loudly that Greece is about to kicked out as a warning to every country thinking of breaking the stability pack. Evidence: Spain just made a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

Most of the nationalists tend to be of the heavily tattooed kind marching lock step in army boots wearing Steinar t-shirts.. There are plenty of valid intellectual objections to the EU, it certainly is far from flawless, but the nationalists don't have the mental capacity to make decent arguments..

The people/peoples (depending on how you perceive it) of Europe is definitely extremely patriotic, near the point of nationalism. What you see is a quite common (mis)conception: Europeans socialize by insulting eachother, and not really meaning it; Americans socialize by complimenting eachother, and not really meaning it either.. ;)

2) I never said it was presently the situation, although I'm sure it will occur to the Islamists eventually to leverage their minority vote to get what they want through negotiating alliances. While it's a movement within the Republican Party, the Tea Party functions like a third party. The same dynamics apply. It's a reminder why America shouldn't allow itself to lapse into 3-party+ politics.

The Tea party only has influence because if it splits away, the democrats would win the election due to US voting system. In europe, if there is a really horrible party left and right usually lay there practically nonexistant difference aside to gang up against them. That's happened in Sweden to beat the swedish democrats and recently in finland to get the bailout passed against 20%+ True Finns.

@Arcus:

There is also back-door introduction of sharia such as most of the meat being butchered to confirm to halal (it's barbaric),

EU allowed it because the jews demanded it too. Some countries still have a ban because old antisemitic laws are still on the book.

Islamic banking which demands it's own regulatory oversight (which is still a work-in-progress), Muslim led companies denying interest charges for late payment (a standard business practice), etc.

Islamic banking is a joke...they know it themself and it just gets hyped to get sweet petrodollars. China being on shopping spree is far, far worse because they do it to gain influence while the muslims to it to get money.

@Albert

The Euroscepticism is just what you get when the national governments fuck up and deflect the blame on the EU(which they run...or have you ever heard about what the EU parliament has to say about the bailouts?)